Military Strategy in a Complex World Dominic K. Albino, Katriel Friedman, Yaneer Bar-Yam New England Complex Systems Institute William G. Glenney IV∗ Chief of Naval Operations Strategic Studies Group arXiv:1602.05670v2 [physics.soc-ph] 18 Mar 2016 ∗ The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Department of the Navy, the U. S. Naval War College or the CNO Strategic Studies Group. 1 Abstract A strategy is a plan, method, or series of actions for obtaining a specified goal. A military strategy typically employs the threat or use of military force to advance goals in opposition to an adversary, and is called upon where large scale force is viewed as the way to achieve such goals. Strategic thinking is traditionally focused on which part or combination of land, air, and naval forces is most effective. This may be too narrow an approach to accomplishing the ultimate end, which is generally political influence or control|or preventing influence or control by others|and almost never consists of physical destruction itself. In order to broaden the discussion of military strategy, we consider here three distinct effects of inflicting stress on an opponent: a) A fragile system is damaged|possibly catastrophically, b) A robust system is largely unaffected, retaining much or all of its prior strength, c) Some systems actually gain strength, a property which has recently been termed antifragility. Traditional perspectives of military strategy implicitly assume fragility, limiting their validity and resulting in surprise, and assume a specific end state rather than an overall condition of the system as a goal. Robustness and antifragility are relevant both to offense, in attacks against the enemy, and defense, in meeting attacks against one's own forces. While robustness and antifragility are desirable in friendly systems, an enemy possessing these characteristics undermines the premise that an attack will achieve a desired increase in control. Historical and contemporary examples demonstrate the failure of traditional strategies against antifragile enemies|even devastating damage inflicted upon nations or other organizations did not weaken and defeat them, but rather strengthened them, resulting in their victory. Underlying such successful responses are socio-economic or political strengths. Our discussion is a basis for scientific analysis of the historical and contemporary conditions under which distinct types of strategies will be successful and provides guidance to improved strategic thinking. 2 I. INTRODUCTION A military strategist is responsible for an overall approach that leads to identifying actions that in turn achieve goals. In these actions, available military power is applied to control an adversary, including its military forces, territory and resources. The strategist assumes that resistance by the adversary will be overcome, leading to behavioral modification in line with the desired outcome. Traditional strategic thinking focuses on how to apply force, including which aspect of the military|land, naval, and air forces|to use in what manner [1{6]. Goals may be offensive, defensive or a combination such as an offensive action designed to pre-empt or counter an enemy offensive. Success of a strategy can often be attributed to the underlying capabilities of a system that is executing the strategy as well as the system that is the target of the strategy. Traditional measures of capability include manpower and firepower, but other capabilities are important as well. These include effectiveness of action (sensitivity to relevant information, effective decision making based upon that information and effective exercise of force), the degree to which the system is damaged by the application of force (robustness), and the ability to recover from damage (resilience). Strategic thinking becomes more complicated when the exercise of force may be ineffective and even counterproductive, leading to defeat rather than victory. The result of exercising force depends greatly on the response to that force over time. We can identify three classes of adversary response that are relevant to the outcomes of conflict: A fragile system is damaged by stress|possibly catastrophically, which is typically the attacker's desired intent and result. A robust system, on the other hand, is largely unaffected by the stress and retains much or all of its prior strength. Finally, some systems actually gain strength from exposure to stress, a property which has recently been termed antifragility [7]. For example, antifragility may occur when an attack motivates increased recruitment that ultimately augments an adversary's military capability. We can combine the response to damage with the ability to anticipate|to act to avoid damage or exploit opportunities|creating a more complete characterization of system properties as shown in Fig.1. Traditional ideas about control implicitly or explicitly focus on destruction of enemy forces, the fragility of which is usually an unstated assumption. Some have questioned this approach. Rear Admiral J.C. Wylie asked, \What kind of control is desired, and under what 3 Health An#cipatory: An#cipates and avoids harm and takes advantage of opportunity Stronger An#fragile: A-er damage recovers to higher level Reference level of health #me Resilient: Recovers a-er damage Robust: Compara#ve level of health a-er Weaker damage is higher than alterna#ve system Fragile: Compara#ve level of health a-er damage is lower than alterna#ve system FIG. 1: Characterization of the changes in system health when subject to external stresses. System properties can include (a) the ability to anticipate, resulting in avoidance of harm or exploitation of opportunities (anticipatory, purple), (b) the ability to recover from damage to a higher level of health than before (antfragile, blue), (c) the ability to recover from damage (resilient, green), (d) the ability to withstand damage (robust, orange), and (e) breaking under stress (fragile, red). circumstances will destruction or the threat of destruction bring about the desired measure of control? Judgments of this kind are among the most difficult and speculative of all the problems of strategy" [8]. In addition to the impact on the adversary, an attack may have deleterious impacts on the attacker's side by depleting military, economic, or political resources, or diverting resources from defense, creating vulnerabilities. It may also establish a persistent disadvantageous pattern of interaction with the adversary or with other groups. Actions involving larger forces can be expected to have disruptive effects on vulnerable socio-economic systems. Even limited force may cause undesired disruption of social order, undesired casualties, and persistent enmity that undermines desired longer term relationships. Finally, attacks may undermine the goals of the attacker by destroying desired resources, or by violating its fundamental values, for example causing civilian casualties. These adverse \indirect" outcomes create a paradox for strategists who are focused primarily on direct observable effects. It is also important to recognize that a particular goal may or may not be possible given the cultures and social structures of the nations or groups involved. The variety of ways initial success of military force can be undermined are manifest in examples ranging from ancient conflicts to modern wars. From the Punic wars to recent 4 conflicts such as the Iraq War, as well as the classic examples of Napoleonic and German invasions of Russia in 1812 and 1939, many examples show that initial success in defeating enemy forces, or success in more limited measures such as occupying territory, does not necessarily translate into ultimate success in achieving desired goals [5,9{11]. Even in the case of a successful defeat of a fragile enemy, the actual outcomes may not be the desired outcomes. A classic example is the Allies' WWI victory and the subsequent political and economic sanctions imposed on Germany. The sanctions are generally considered to have contributed to the conditions that resulted in WWII [12, 13]. Another example of inherently ineffective attacks is in deterrence by mutually assured destruction [14], a strategy adopted in the Cold War confrontation of the US and USSR. In this context any attack would result in such a high level of mutual destruction that no rational objective could be served. The strategy was conflict deterrence through the threat of attack. The complications of strategy arise because the exercise of force is a means to accom- plish other objectives rather than a goal in itself, the goals of the strategy are often too narrowly defined as a specific end state, while the actual objectives are ongoing societal conditions. In the early 1800s, the military theorist Clausewitz stated that the goal of war is ultimately political [15]. While destruction is sometimes envisaged, modern conflict almost always occurs in the context of ongoing, mutually beneficial economic, social, and political relationships. To be successful, strategists must account not only for short term effects, but also impacts on future conditions. Military strategies should therefore consider a variety of psychological, economic, and political measures along with, or instead of, targeted military force. Even when advisable, military action may be one step, but is not the only step, in a process of achieving a desired relationship between two or more peoples, or establishing a desired condition